mxst

mxst

Hey everyone.
I was wondering about how I should initialize a struct where I have some values and some computed values.

For now I came up with:

defmodule Stats do
  defstruct annotations: 0, true_positive: 0,
    false_positive: 0, false_negative: 0,
    precision: 0, recall: 0

  def set_precision(stats \\ %AnnotationStats{}) do
    Map.put(stats, :precision, (stats.true_positive / (stats.true_positive + stats.false_positive)))
  end

  def set_recall(stats \\ %AnnotationStats{}) do
    Map.put(stats, :recall, (stats.true_positive / (stats.true_positive + stats.false_negative)))
  end
end

What I the initialize with

my_stats = %Stats{annotations: 3, true_positive: 1, false_positive: 2, false_negative: 1}
|> set_precision()
|> set_recall()

But is there a cleaner way ? Or the way to do it?

Thank you all :slight_smile:

Showing Posts 1 to 3

Eiji

Eiji

Here is my proposition:

defmodule Stats do
  required_keys = [:false_negative, :false_positive, :true_positive]
  @enforce_keys required_keys
  defstruct required_keys ++ [annotations: 0, precision: 0, recall: 0]

  @type t :: %__MODULE__{
          annotations: integer,
          false_negative: integer,
          false_positive: integer,
          precision: float,
          recall: float,
          true_positive: integer
        }

  @spec init(t) :: t
  def init(%__MODULE__{true_positive: true_positive} = struct) do
    computed = %{
      precision: init_computed(true_positive, struct.false_positive),
      recall: init_computed(true_positive, struct.false_negative)
    }

    Map.merge(struct, computed)
  end

  defp init_computed(true_positive, value), do: true_positive / (true_positive + value)
end

Stats.init(%Stats{annotations: 3, false_negative: 1, false_positive: 2, true_positive: 1})

It would fail if you did not pass 3 keys (specified in @enforce_keys) which are required to compute.

Alternatively you could write something like:

defmodule Stats do
  required_keys = [:false_negative, :false_positive, :true_positive]
  @enforce_keys required_keys
  defstruct required_keys ++ [annotations: 0, precision: 0, recall: 0]

  @type t :: %__MODULE__{
          annotations: integer,
          false_negative: integer,
          false_positive: integer,
          precision: float,
          recall: float,
          true_positive: integer
        }

  @spec init(map, integer, integer, integer) :: t
  def init(map, false_negative, false_positive, true_positive) do
    full_map =
      map
      |> Map.put(:false_negative, false_negative)
      |> Map.put(:false_positive, false_positive)
      |> Map.put(:precision, init_computed(true_positive, false_positive))
      |> Map.put(:recall, init_computed(true_positive, false_negative))
      |> Map.put(:true_positive, true_positive)

    struct(__MODULE__, full_map)
  end

  defp init_computed(true_positive, value), do: true_positive / (true_positive + value)
end

This way allows to pass map (don’t require struct), but forces to pass required keys separately.

Finally you can also do it in more pattern-matching like way:

defmodule Stats do
  required_keys = [:false_negative, :false_positive, :true_positive]
  @enforce_keys required_keys
  defstruct required_keys ++ [annotations: 0, precision: 0, recall: 0]

  @type init_map :: %{
          optional(:annotations) => integer,
          optional(:precision) => float,
          optional(:recall) => float,
          required(:false_negative) => integer,
          required(:false_positive) => integer,
          required(:true_positive) => integer
        }

  @type t :: %__MODULE__{
          annotations: integer,
          false_negative: integer,
          false_positive: integer,
          precision: float,
          recall: float,
          true_positive: integer
        }

  @spec init(init_map) :: t
  def init(
        %{
          false_negative: false_negative,
          false_positive: false_positive,
          true_positive: true_positive
        } = map
      ) do
    computed = %{
      precision: init_computed(true_positive, false_positive),
      recall: init_computed(true_positive, false_negative)
    }

    __MODULE__ |> struct(map) |> Map.merge(computed)
  end

  defp init_computed(true_positive, value), do: true_positive / (true_positive + value)
end

Which allows to pass required keys in map.

mxst

mxst OP

First of all thank you very much for your very detailed answer.

In your second solution: What is the map in the init() for?

If I understand you correct I would initialize Version 2 via:

Stats.init(%{annotations: 3}, 1, 2, 1)

and Version 3 via:

Stats.init(%{annotations: 3, false_negaitve: 1, false_positive: 2, true_positive: 1})

?

Eiji

Eiji

Yup, everything is correct. I saw that annotiations is not used for computing, but you pass it, so it’s more like map with optional data for me. If you want to use 2nd solution feel free to make this map optional by adding default argument like map \\ %{}.

— All posts loaded —

Where Next? Top

Trending in Questions Top

katta
I having some trouble figuring out if I have set myself too strict of standards for my production server. Currently I can handle 75% of r...
New
brecabral
Documentation While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
achenet
Hello, I’m trying to build a basic Phoenix web-app, and I’d like to use Tailwind. However, when I launch mix phx.server, I get an error...
New
kpanic
Hi everyone, I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding. I sta...
New
asweet-confluent
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
Cxx-mlr
I’m working on a small exercise involving update_in/3, and I came up with this solution: data = %{ name: "Periodic Table", category:...
New
ChrisAmelia
I’ve got trouble wrapping my head around the order in which functions are called in this snippet (from Phoenix’s authentication): toke...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

GenericJam
Edit: 2026 May 15 - This post is archived. Mob is alive!! Main docs: mob v0.7.11 — Documentation A bit of explanation for the slightly c...
New
JesseHerrick
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
mudasobwa
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM. Welcome Cure. It has literally three kille...
New
garrison
Hobbes is a low-level distributed database for the Elixir programming language. Hobbes provides a simple, safe, and scalable storage lay...
New
mhanberg
Hi everyone! The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available! We’ve published a press release detai...
New
budgie
A little off-topic, but I feel like people here have a good head on their shoulders. I used to be quite good at making software. Was luc...
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement

Options

Thread Display Mode




Thread Preview

Skip Thread Previews